This study demonstrates that a multi‑indicator framework—integrating road‑fatality rate, total fatalities, fatal accidents, and overall accident counts—provides a substantially more accurate assessment of road traffic safety than the conventional single‑rate approach (ΔCFI = 0.12; ΔRMSEA = –0.057). Path analysis of Estonia’s 2010–2018 daily traffic data revealed that accident severity mediates the relationship between traffic volume and overall safety far more strongly than accident frequency (indirect effect via fatalities = 0.22, p < 0.001 vs. indirect effect via total accidents = 0.13, p = 0.003). Consequently, policies that target reductions in severe crashes are likely to yield greater gains toward the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3.6 than interventions focused solely on lowering overall crash counts.
Policy Implications
Prioritise severity‑reduction measures
Risk‑based infrastructure investment
Data‑driven monitoring & reporting
Behavioural interventions aligned with severity risk
– Develop public‑awareness campaigns emphasizing the disproportionate societal cost of severe crashes (loss of life, long‑term disability) rather than focusing only on total crash numbers.
– Introduce incentive programmes for fleet operators that reward reductions in fatality‑linked outcomes (e.g., insurance premium discounts tied to zero‑fatality years).
Legislative alignment
By reorienting traffic‑safety strategies toward severity mitigation, policymakers can achieve more efficient reductions in road‑traffic deaths, thereby accelerating Estonia’s—and other nations’—progress toward halving global traffic fatalities by 2030.